[mavilia]

Very interesting read. I always wonder about the criticisms of new solutions that are working as magically as they seem to be in the article. The kids started taking antibiotics, and soon thereafter had obvious improvement that led to them being cured eventually. Of course you can say sample size wasn't large enough to make any conclusions, but what is their (critics of PANDAS) answer to the fact that the antibiotics worked? Is it pure coincidence? Or some other mechanism in play?

If it was another mechanism in play then at the very least I would think that autoimmune treatment should be used as a backup plan in case typical OCD, ADHD, etc. drugs aren't working as shown through the article.

Of course I am not a medical researcher so this may have an obvious answer, but I always wanted to know how critics go beyond the "n=1" argument to disprove new solutions that seem to work perfectly.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the typical ADHD medications amphetamine and methylphenidate?

Shouldn't these two powerful stimulants be medications of last resort?

[testvox]

They are, but ADHD is particularly unresponsive to other interventions. So those drugs are usually what ends up being the only effective treatment anyways.

[krageon]

Giving methylphenidate to children with ADHD actually improves their symptoms later in life (even if they stop taking the medication).

[tyu100]

This is covered in the article: these rare chidhood neurologial diseases are considered multi-factorial and antibiotics may or may not work in some cases, at some stage of disease onset.

I would be extremely wary of self-reported miracle cures for chronic diseases as well. 'Liberation treatment' for MS had many fantastic reports of patients throwing away their crutches and the like but of course turned out to be totally ineffective.

[maxerickson]

They pretty much have to come up with a better explanation.